I'm an associate editor at Forbes, part of the team responsible for our signature issues: The Forbes 400, Global Billionaires and America's Richest Families. As a writer, I cover these wealthy business builders as well as other entrepreneurs. Before Forbes, I also reported on entrepreneurs for Inc. magazine and attended Syracuse University's S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.

A Gun-Control Battle That Could Actually Damage The Industry Is Escaping Public Attention

Those concerned about the $32 billion firearm industry–gun owners, investors, whatever–should shift their attention from Capital Hill to courtrooms around the country. Potentially damaging gun-control measures seem more likely to come from the country’s justices than from its 535 lawmakers.

Two federal appeals courts last week reviewed the legality behind concealed carry laws. In Denver, the court decided that concealed-carry firearms aren’t protected by the Second Amendment. A thousand miles away in Chicago, the court reached a different decision. It declined to reconsider a ruling that found that state’s ban on concealed carry unconstitutional.

These two courts aren’t the first to mull this issue. A New York federal appeals court last November upheld a state law that required concealed-carry applicants to prove “proper cause” to obtain concealed-carry licenses. Looking ahead, appeals courts in California and Virginia are set to review the issue.

Concealed carry laws have been on the rise for the greater part of three decades. They could very well soon stretch nationwide, if Illinois completes its about-face on concealed carry. Not too surprisingly, it’s most prevalent in red states, especially so in Georgia, Utah and Florida; in the Peach State, for example, more than 12% of adults 20 and older have an active permit. All told, more than 8 million Americans have one. And not only has the number of licensing states increased in the past ten years (in 2002, seven states including Illinois banned concealed carry), but more and more states are recognizing others’ permits, making it practical to become licensed and purchase a weapon.

Gun companies moved quickly to take advantage of this boom, as well as a growing comfort with firearms after anti-gun campaigns of the 1990s. Today, concealed carry weapons–small, compact pistols and revolvers–are one of the most crucial parts of the firearm business. Both Sturm, Ruger and Smith & Wesson sell far more handguns than long-guns; Forbes last year estimated that Ruger’s ultra-popular Lightweight Compact Revolver and Lightweight Compact Pistol make up about 17% of the company’s sales alone ($55 million). These small firearms are often marketed to women, a particularly fast-growing segment of firearm owners. Ruger even makes LCRs and LCPs models with pink grips.

This is all why the courtroom battle over concealed carry matters much more than whether Congress actually creates legislation that limits semi-automatic rifles (the type of weapon used in the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre). Fact is, gun rights lawmakers are already posturing to declaw any gun law that comes through Congress. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is set to stand tall in the Senate, and the Republican-dominated House of Representatives would prove hard to sway toward sweeping legislation. It seems pretty safe to assume that we’ll continue to be able to stock a large arsenal from a simple stop at Wal-Mart, Dick’s Sporting Goods or Cabela’s.

A shopping trip that could quite possibly not include any small handguns. What’s next in the courts? Contradictory appeal decisions would raise the likelihood that the matter would reach the Supreme Court. It would mark the first time that the nation’s highest court would weigh gun control arguments since two blockbuster cases in 2008 and 2010. The earlier case, District of Columbia v. Heller, upheld many 19th century prohibitions on concealed weapons, but also acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects a right to own guns. Then, the court took matters a step forward two years later: In McDonald v. Chicago, it established that state and local laws should also recognize the right to own firearms.

Significantly, McDonald v. Chicago said only that there’s a right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense, but not anything about what types of gun control laws violate the Second Amendment. Stopping short there has set up today’s brewing disagreement over concealed carry.

Reach Abram Brown at abrown@forbes.com.

(ADDENDUM: Sorry, folks, but Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook killer, did in fact use the AR-15 rifle. Here’s a link directly to the Connecticut State Police debunking that theory. And if Lanza did use handguns, there’s a good chance the weapons may have been models designed to attract concealed carry laws, making the odds of concealed carry bans more likely.)

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

“Sure you have a right to free speech. But only in the home or on other private property. Oh, and any speaking outside you own home or allowed business, privately as in without your government’s discretion? Clearly not an intended right. So uh, no talking when outside. We could jail you at our discretion. Also, “carrying” on any conversation that might take place in one private or home area, that is continued on at another area, clearly not a right. Yes see, constitutional rights were written only for within the home area.”

See how that works?

“Sure you have a right to bear arms, but only in the home or on other private property…”

lcr1946…I’m a retired law Enforcement Officer, 30 years service, also former US Marine with four Honorable Discharges…According to you, I’m “paranoid” and “mentally ill” because I have a concealed carry license!…If you are ever (God forbid) in a situation where you are about to be victimized by a criminal dial 911 and hope the police are standing right next to you!…If anyone is nuts it’s anti-gun weenies like yourself who have no common sense whatsoever.

lcr1946: I have a CHL, I went out today, went to Walmart, went to my Collage courses, went to Home-depot, stopped and got gas, took my wife out for dinner then to DQ for some ice cream and then we went home and the strangest thing happened, that .40 that I carry never jumped out of its holster shot anybody, weird huh?

Being against concealed carry laws is completely counter-intuitive to the pro-gun control argument. Concealed carry permits ARE gun control. In almost all states that have concealed carry, the applicant has to attend classes and submit to an FBI background check. Felons cannot get a concealed permit. In states that have allowed concealed carry, crime rates have gone DOWN.

laws laws laws, goverment laws….we the people have rights or i should say “had” rights, but i do belive those rights are still in place and still mean a great deal to the people of the United States of America. One of those rights are the right to bare and carry. i think theres many in the upper government that might want to read and learn our rights. we the people have less and less rights. it becoming a dictatorship like other countrys. putting a stop to all of this the only ones that will have guns will be the people with bad intent. seems funny to me that the Sandy Hook nightmare the gunman had the AR-15′s in his car and hadnt been shot,just the handguns, they even showed photos of the AR-15′s in the back seat of his car, my question is how did the AR15′s get back in the car if he suposibly used them? 2nd question how did he make it to class rooms with AR-15′s ( cant conceal them).. wake up everyone!another chance for Governments power play..TOUCHE !

Arms proliferation does not make things safer. Drain the swamp of guns that is drowning the nation and everyone will benefit. The theory that only criminals will carry guns if they are banned sounds good, but it is just a theory. Machine guns and hand grenades are banned, and I don’t see criminals using those. In Japan, guns are banned, and criminals don’t have them either. Criminals are not gods. Except for the super high-end criminals, crooks are affected by laws to some degree. And the high-end people are not interested in the likes of you. Reducing access to the most dangerous guns will increase safety.

Guns are banned in Mexico, too. How are you suggesting we “drain the swamp of guns?” Go door-to-door and demand the guns there? Be my guest, you won’t last long.

There are too many weapons in this country to ever make disarmament a feasible option. More importantly, restricting law-abiding citizens that seek to protect themselves with a gun does nothing but make things easier for the criminals that would otherwise be deterred. What do you know about “super high-end criminals?”

Unfortunately your two last sentences are both fallacies. The “high-end” (by which I’m assuming you mean educated) individuals are able to think for themselves, not just follow what an abusive and corrupt government tells them. If you can explain how exactly restricting guns is going to solve the (decreasing for a decade) problem of gun violence, considering the only people that will follow the law wouldn’t be shooting innocent people in the first place, be my guest.

Studies have shown that most gun violence is in concentrated areas, usually correlating with high drug and gang activity. Maybe you should be more worried with addressing the catalyst of the issue instead of the scapegoat.

Dear Mr. Brown, I want to thank you for inviting me to this wonderful discussion and bring greeting to your readers.In the response to your article I would like to state a simple,time proven fact.That fact is that all living things on Earth recognize the basic, fundamental right to exist and to exercise the right to defend such existence.

Having said this, I will confess to being one of those individuals who does carry concealed.I carry not out of fear but out of protection.Studies such as those by Prof. Gary Kleck of the University of Florida, have proven that criminals fear the potential of an armed Victim more than they do the Police.

Furthermore, those who do opt to Carry a Concealed weapon have to prove themselves capable of doing so and also have to submit to a lenghtly background check so no person of ill-repute need apply for such credentials.

I know that most people will see my views as counter productive or even provacative .However as I stated earlier with my opening arguments it is up to the individual alone to come to the universal ideal of his or her right to argue their resistance to crime as he or she sees fit and within reason of the eyes of the Law.

Just another example of how they are trying to keep the law abiding person from not only being able to defend themselves in public in colorado but a prime example of govener hickenstoopers rubber stamp of the democratic partys agenda.Yes men are socialist and week in character and integrity. Go hickenpooper There hasn’t been a single law inacted that has prevented a single crazy person from carrying out there acts. The truth is the removal of weapons by writing so many laws that are designed to keep people from owning them or affording them is the great socialist agenda. then police control or marshal law being implemented when total control of a free nation is needed.

Understand that weapons, and the 2nd amendment were not intended for personal protection, or hunting, (those are good too) it was to arm us against a tyrannical government, like the one that is trying to “disarm” us now! How ironic!